suls tan what we burn through. there are not enough eyeballs on the blog. ifweuseastraight advertising sustainhe blog couldn't itself in the level that exists now. we didn't have a reporter -- numbers?ms of >> in terms of just eyeballs. desirable e a very focussed audience that has value in and of itself. transition.he if you were to advertise cars or omething like that, there are particular subset of people who that ading the blog various people have found to be because of the and the of peabody like, people want to be associated with us. exclusive aw, our sponsor think, i think, the community of lawyers and people e theest in the law will us blog a lot. we have demographic information about our readers as most websites do. we have a relationship with them exclusive write content for their users, their subscribers. but the principal focus is hey've made a judgment that advertising bloomberg law on scotus law has economic value. social ey think it's a good. you can't lose sight of the fact that bloomberg made a decision for this was something good the country. they may be

those internal machinations of the court becauseforustheaction is what the court actually does. that is in the decisions. it structurally is just set up that way. i mentioned earlier that the people who would know this would be a very small number. the justices themselves, the law holys who in essence take orders not to talk about this stuff. about ithem will talk years later but some law clerks will never talk about what they did when they were law clerks. so it is just different. the whole engine that drives leaks in other government institutions is completely different. there are many motives for leaks . you leak something because you want to shoot down what you think is going to happen. you leak something because you get it outically there and see how it is going to go. you test it out and launch a trial balloon. you leak just to say i know something you don't know and enhance your credibility. drive leakse things and i will give my number in a moment. they just don't work in the supreme court. perils in the press corps from reporting stories like this? >> i would say no, n

that question talkabout.orustoi do believe many of the business people and environment was who supported cap and trade were so focused on working out the details of a bargain inside of washington, d.c. trying to figure out how many allowances to give to which andons and how to reach out rope in more business leaders to support the legislation. the just operate on assumption that if they could get business support, that would deliver republican votes to congress. meanwhile, the republican party was changing. by 2009, that change had a label. tea party movement. which i did face to face interviews with the tea party people in several parts of the country and found for them, the threat of environmental protection agency regulating and cap and trade were right up there with obamacare as things they considered likely to lead the end of western civilization and the american way of life. [laughter] another one that they were very upset about. big-money funders. , altra works and others eeee markets -- ultra-fr markets were ramping up their running of ads criticizing cap environmental regulation try